Zoner
9th Nov 2005, 05:25
http://www.landings.com/evird.acgi$pass*77634924!_h-www.landings.com/_landings/pacflyer/nov5-2005/Nn-52-falling-out-of.html
Commercial airlines may soon be able to land at 8,000 more U.S. airports because of research involving Air Force test pilots - but there's a hitch.
Using specialized equipment, researchers collected flight data of different C-17 landings. They first measured the noise made by aircraft using a straight-in approach, typical of commercial airliner landings.
Another landing tested was the spiral descent, known by military members who have flown into a combat zone. This involved research measuring the noise made by a C-17 as it spiraled down over a landing site, much like a hawk looking for prey.
If the research is applied, no longer will aircraft be restricted from landing at smaller airports because of the excessive noise aircraft make upon landing, according to Dennis Eckenrod, an American Airlines MD-80 captain participating in the study. However, there is the issue of scaring the hell out of the passengers as their airliner spirals down out of the sky directly over an airport.
And where will the Final Approach Fix be? And where do they intercept the glideslope in bad weather?
Apparently those questions are yet to be answered.
After researchers collected the data by using 17 microphones covering about 15 square miles positioned on Rogers Dry Lakebed, they determined the spiral landing approach reduced aircraft noise within acceptable bounds of most U.S. airports (except for all that screaming coming from the back).
"An aircraft that could utilize the shorter runways of smaller regional and community airports could bring commercial air travel to approximately 97 percent of the U.S. population living within one-half hour of an airport," said John Zuk, NASA Extreme Short Takeoff and Landing Vehicle Section manager at Ames in Moffett Field, Calif.
"Preliminary results indicate that theÉ approaches will concentrate the noise footprint into a narrow area, and that the flight can be conducted safely with the commercial aircraft ride quality, Zuk said. The landing approaches were simple and safe, said NASA research pilot Frank Batteas.
"They were flown using the aircraft autopilot and navigation displays," Batteas said. "With some software changes, the aircraft flight director could provide total flight guidance for these approaches."
Eckenrod was onboard the C-17 during the test mission. He evaluated the rate of descent from a civilian pilot's perspective and from the comfort level of an airline passenger. Engineering students and professors from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, Calif., and officials from Northrop Grumman are also participating in the study.
But let's be realistic. Despite all the eggheads and advance aeronautical theoreticians studying this "fall out of the sky approach," dropping a fully-loaded 767 from 30,000 feet to the FAF by steeply spiraling down out of the sky is probably going to cause a few heart attacks and some panicked ATC operators the first time it happens.
Commercial airlines may soon be able to land at 8,000 more U.S. airports because of research involving Air Force test pilots - but there's a hitch.
Using specialized equipment, researchers collected flight data of different C-17 landings. They first measured the noise made by aircraft using a straight-in approach, typical of commercial airliner landings.
Another landing tested was the spiral descent, known by military members who have flown into a combat zone. This involved research measuring the noise made by a C-17 as it spiraled down over a landing site, much like a hawk looking for prey.
If the research is applied, no longer will aircraft be restricted from landing at smaller airports because of the excessive noise aircraft make upon landing, according to Dennis Eckenrod, an American Airlines MD-80 captain participating in the study. However, there is the issue of scaring the hell out of the passengers as their airliner spirals down out of the sky directly over an airport.
And where will the Final Approach Fix be? And where do they intercept the glideslope in bad weather?
Apparently those questions are yet to be answered.
After researchers collected the data by using 17 microphones covering about 15 square miles positioned on Rogers Dry Lakebed, they determined the spiral landing approach reduced aircraft noise within acceptable bounds of most U.S. airports (except for all that screaming coming from the back).
"An aircraft that could utilize the shorter runways of smaller regional and community airports could bring commercial air travel to approximately 97 percent of the U.S. population living within one-half hour of an airport," said John Zuk, NASA Extreme Short Takeoff and Landing Vehicle Section manager at Ames in Moffett Field, Calif.
"Preliminary results indicate that theÉ approaches will concentrate the noise footprint into a narrow area, and that the flight can be conducted safely with the commercial aircraft ride quality, Zuk said. The landing approaches were simple and safe, said NASA research pilot Frank Batteas.
"They were flown using the aircraft autopilot and navigation displays," Batteas said. "With some software changes, the aircraft flight director could provide total flight guidance for these approaches."
Eckenrod was onboard the C-17 during the test mission. He evaluated the rate of descent from a civilian pilot's perspective and from the comfort level of an airline passenger. Engineering students and professors from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, Calif., and officials from Northrop Grumman are also participating in the study.
But let's be realistic. Despite all the eggheads and advance aeronautical theoreticians studying this "fall out of the sky approach," dropping a fully-loaded 767 from 30,000 feet to the FAF by steeply spiraling down out of the sky is probably going to cause a few heart attacks and some panicked ATC operators the first time it happens.